After reading the articles, I still feel as though Britain will not gain from entering the European Union. On that note though, I didn't agree with "Great Britain Should Leave the European Union," rather I disagreed with "Great Britain Should Remain in the European Union."
I feel as though the first viewpoint was far too extremist. The idea that -England is coming to an end and will vanish from existence- was a bit much.
One of my major supporting factors for why Britain shouldn't join the European Union was in "The Benefit of Trade" section in the second viewpoint. It mentioned that the EU, having created the largest Single Market in the world, makes it easier for the countries involved to trade as well as promote economic growth, cut costs of delivering goods, and creating jobs. This sounds great especially because Great Britain is know for struggling with unemployment and economic issues (as seen in the Prime Minister's Questions), but in reality, this would not help Britain.
If you look at the UK's exports (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/2/24/1267034168701/UK-exports-graphic-001.jpg), all of the members of the EU that are listed as the top trading partners have red circles, indicating that Britain has been less involved in trade there, while they've been increasing in places abroad such as China and Canada. This shows that Britain does not need help with their trades; they're better off as they are. They don't need a fake attempt at an outside federal government to assist them with something that their own Parliament can handle.
In addition to the trade issue I also disagreed with the paragraph stating that without the EU, devastating things would happen such as decision-making occurring without rule of law. However, all of the things listed that the EU countries would have to live without, should something happen to the EU, Britain already has.
With all this in mind I put my vote out that Great Britain does not join the European Union, rather stay where they are with one hand in and one hand out. This way they're capable of getting the best of both worlds; keeping their sovereignty, while also recognizing globalization.
Truthfully I was not impressed by either of the two articles we had to read. Each for a different reason, but neither were able to sway my point of view that the United Kingdom should stay exactly where it is and perhaps take a small step out of the European Union. The first article written by Vernon Coleman was far too radical in what it wanted, and far too dramatic in its presentation. On the other hand, the second article by Richard Laming was not very convincing.
Coleman opened up his argument by saying the European Union is taking part in, “Silent, bloodless, ethnic cleansing…genocide without the blood.” At that point he lost most of his credibility for me and that was paragraph three. This being said, the author does have a valid point. The regional assemblies that were created are unelected members of government. They were voted down yet Great Britain still has them. While I don’t think the European Union is out to eliminate England from the map I do see that becoming more involved with the Union will force Britain to give up a good amount of their policies to conform to an organization that puts its own needs first. The article would have been more convincing if Coleman did not let his want to sell books and columns get in the way of facts.
Richard Laming is the Secretary of Federal Union and his article feels like just another piece of European Union propaganda. He brings up globalization as a valid point, but abandons it after three lines. He brings up the benefits of trade and then succeeds in only pointing out how the pound is worth so much more than the Euro. Yes the European Union has created a few hundred thousand jobs, but across 27 countries. Great Britain needs that many just for itself. He does not establish why environmental issues must be handled through the European Union when it would be just as easy to meet with the leaders of various countries involved and create legislation that way. I agree that Britain needs to cooperate with the European Union; just not that it has to join.
Overall I think the United Kingdom is making the strategic move of delaying its vote so that it can enjoy the benefits of the EU without having to give up its sovereignty. They should continue this as long as possible, but when it finally comes time to make a choice I think the smart one would be to say no and not become a part of the European Union.
After reading the two articles about the EU, I too agree that Britain should stay right where it is or back off if the need presents itself. Like Mickey and Josh said, the first article was a little on the dramatic side, as the English it seems, are a bit too loud to entirely disappear, and their culture has too many strong points to vanish.
That being said, he also does have a point when he brings up the fact that the Regional Assemblies that are "utterly unelected and undemocratic" make "very real decisions about how [their] lives are run". It's not fair for Parliament to impose something upon the people that they don't want. In that respect, a majority of the people don't want to be part of the European Union. However, if Britain were to ever back out of the EU, is it even possible? And what are the ramifications of leaving?
The second article talks a lot about globalization and how the solutions to a problem don't just effect one country anymore. That is true, and it's also the reason why the idea of the EU looks good on paper. The environmental outreach of the European Union seems like a good idea, seeing as how it connects Europe though not necessarily with ties that cannot be broken, but anything farther the EU may be planning is going to far in my opinion. The evidence provided too doesn't say what the European Union has done for Britain, but what it has done for everyone involved in the EU, so it makes you wonder just how much support is Britain actually getting from the EU? All those jobs the the EU has created, how many actually went to British people? How much money has Britain actually got back? There don't really seem to be clear numbers anywhere.
Personally, I don't think Britain can afford not to be part of the EU, not and look bad in the face of other countries, but the exact message of the EU still seems unclear. I think Britain should stay where they are with one foot in and one foot out.
I don’t think Britain should do anything to change its role in the European Union. As it is, it can vote, but it doesn’t have to do everything the EU says it should do. In regard to the economy, it doesn’t have to use the Euro and it doesn’t have to risk being dragged down by poorer countries belonging to the EU. The article in favor of Britain remaining in the EU claimed that it had led to an “increase in household income of about… £3,819 in the past ten years,” but I don’t see how they could tell that that was a direct result of the European Single Market; there were probably other factors involved. There are also humanitarian efforts associated with the EU, but Britain already does pretty well with contributing aid to developing countries. If the EU did not exist, Britain would still help those in need. Obviously Britain can’t afford to be isolationist, but there is really no danger of that anymore; it would be practically impossible for it to do so without serious repercussions in its economy and relationships with other nations. It doesn’t need the EU in order to be a world leader; it already is one.
Neither of the two articles we read really changed my point of view. I do not think that Great Britain should leave the European Union, I think that they should remain in EU but I do think that their current position will soon cause problems in the EU. I agreed with Mickey, Josh, and Sara in the sense that the first article was too dramatic. I do not think that the relationship between the EU and the UK is "genocide without the blood." The goal of the EU is not to wipe England off the map, it is to promote the political and economic integration of Europe. I didn't like the fact that Vernon Coleman took the position of an Englishman rather than taking into consideration the involvement of the UK as a whole. I do not believe that the UK's current position is jeopardizing the English culture and I also do not think that an increased involvement in the EU by the UK would jeopardize the English culture. Coleman did have a good point when he talked about the Regional Assemblies. If the EU has a democratic requirement for countries joining, it should not put undemocratic assemblies in power. Although it is clear that some points Coleman made were exaggerated, if a region votes down a Regional Assembly there shouldn't be one. I do not think this is any reason for the UK to leave the EU. The only part of the article that I thought contributed to this argument was the excerpt from the UK Independence Party. It stated that The EU is bad for the economy, self-respect, and prosperity of the UK. These arguments aren't really backed, but if this were the case then it would be in the UK's best interest to leave. The next article does not convince me either. Richard Laming mentions globalization as the main reason that the UK should remain in the EU. Laming then fails to elaborate on this point. Though we have already discovered how much globalization is affecting today's politics I don't really understand how it contributes to the UK's position in the EU. I do agree with what Laming has to say about environmental benefits when he says, "It takes an organization as bit as the EU to make such a program possible." This article seems to take the stance of Great Britain should stay where they are in respects to the EU. None of Laming's points contributed to increased involvement by the UK in the EU but I still think it is a good idea. Maybe it is because I am not from Great Britain but I found myself looking at Great Britain's position in the European Union from the position of the EU's other members. I don't think its right that Great Britain is able to take advantage of the European Union, and basically do exactly what Laming says should not be done, "ignore the decisions that they do not like," such as adopting the Euro. I understand that the position Great Britain holds in the EU is ideal for them. They get all of the benefits the EU has to offer and very few of the disadvantages. It is clear that the EU provides the largest benefits to smaller countries who are unable to change anything in a global environment with out the backing of the rest of Europe. I also understand that Great Britain doesn't need the EU. There are no clear advantages to becoming more involved, it would be an advantage to the EU's other members. The UK basically uses the EU when it is to their advantage, but will make no sacrifices for the sake of other members. I do not think this is right and even though the UK is not a full member, they have the second highest number of seats in the EU parliament. I don't understand why other full members are okay with this. I think that Great Britain's current position will start to cause problems; regardless of whether they become full members or leave the EU completely (if thats even possible) something needs to change before it becomes a problem.
Neither article succeeded in inspiring any insight in my mind. My thoughts remained in tact and nothing either article took note of swayed my opinion. I still believe that the United Kingdom should remain in the state that it is in, if not distance itself mildly from the European Union.
The first article was in the point of view of a seemingly proud Englishman who would prefer that the country refuse the help of the EU because of how superior they are and, possibly, how weak the EU makes them appear in the eyes of foreign nations. He was rather sarcastic in his remarks that the UK is "disappearing". Also, England is not "coming to an end". The United Kingdom is also better off than other nations at the moment, with a better unemployment rate and the like.
The first article lacked depth; the author threw points into the pile with little explanation and gave little in terms of relation to the topic.
The United Kingdom remains quite strong as they are currently standing and do not require the help of the EU. As Mickey said, they are much better off than the EU in terms of trading partners. However, I don't believe that the UK needs to separate themselves from the EU. The relationship, while it doesn't provide great benefits for the UK, it doesn't hurt the UK to remain in a cooperative relationship with the EU.
The second article was very cut and dry; it, too, lacked depth and at the same time, while the first author seemed very radical, the second author didn't seem intrigued enough in his own concept. He throws a few pro-EU concepts into the mix, including Globalization, trade benefits, and their successful employment rates; however, Laming discusses little in relation to Great Britain's current state and how the EU could help in these areas.
The European Union is a good idea, hypothetically, for weaker nations. The United Kingdom, however, is not weak; instead they are thriving.
The entire time I read both articles, the same phrase stuck out in my mind: "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." Honestly, it makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, they should not, in their current state, vote in favor of greater involvement in the European Union.
Based on the articles, I agree with the Coleman's Article, as opposed to Laming's article. Mainly because, though Laming made many points about why Great Britain should join the EU, none of those benefits seemed worth the loss of independence. Laming had many good points that were agreeable, it seemed more like propaganda than anything else. Lines in the article that made it come across that way were “It takes an organization as big as the EU to make such a programme possible” and “...and has achieved things that mere cooperation never could.”. It seems to be less of a substantial argument, and felt sugar-coated.
Coleman’s article came across as much more blunt. He gave proof and facts to back up his points about England disappearing. He seemed very focused on the EU splitting England into nine regions, “each already has a Regional Assembly... Eight of the Regional Assemblies are entirely unelected.” and later in the article Coleman states “These utterly unelected and undemocratic bodies make very real decisions about how our lives are run.” this is just one example about how giving up your independence for interdependence can allow for a country to crumble.
My viewpoint was not exactly changed, I still agree that the EU is only an idea that looks good on paper, but would not work in real life. Unlike my other classmates, I did not find the first one extreme, I found it informative and eyeopening, especially the part about the Regional Assemblies. The second article seemed a lot more like a cheerleader for the EU. I still believe that the EU is not worth giving up your sovereignty, and being connected is as, if not, more dangerous than beneficial. If one country goes down, they all go down with it.
So, Great Britain should not join the EU, because the independence they have is not worth giving up for the unclear purpose of the EU.
After reading both of the articles my views were not changed greatly. I don't think that Britain should leave nor join the EU. They wouldn't gain anything from joining and nothing would change if they don't. Staying as they are, one foot in one foot out, seems to me as the best decision. The first article talks about how Great Britain is being destroyed, and how all is left is a memory of a great country, all this is because Great Britain is in the EU. I strongly disagree with this view, and I believe that the author seems to go an extreme with his ideas. I agree with that fact that Britain joining the EU is not a good idea because decisions made to help smaller and less powerful countries could ultimately hurt Britain. Joining the EU is not going to kill British pride and image. The EU does not have some master plan to destroy Britain, as the first article says. The EU wants to promote globalization and economic success, something that Great Britian does not need. I believe that the European Union in thought is a very smart idea, especially to countries that are smaller and less powerful. However for a country like Britain to join the EU would not be a good idea because they EU would not help. While there are problems in Britain, as with any country, these problems cannot be solved by joining the EU. Britain giving up sovereignty is not going to solve job problems. Britain does not need help with trade, like smaller countries do. Joining the EU may look good on paper, but all in all it won't solve the problems in Great Britain. My thoughts are this; Great Britain should stay the same. They get the best of both, they don’t have to choose sides; they can be on both. They can keep their sovereignty, (so their country pride doesn't perish) and they can help with rising countries and the rise of globalization.
After reading the following articles I feel that Great Britain is in a good position economically to be one foot in and one foot out. But I also feel that they should join for moral reasons.
Coleman did kind of throw me for a loop like Josh had stated when he stated the the EU was enacting in bloodless genocide, he could of made his point without being so dramatic. I did agree with the fact that the EU does add some stability and foundations for European cooperation and that without it the economies in Europe would of been more devastated if they had not been apart of it. But I think also that the declining economies of Europe would hurt Great Britain.
So I still stand by the idea that on moral grounds Great Britain should join the EU but on Economic grounds being one foot in and one foot out is perfect for the UK.
Great Britain should terminate their membership in the EU. Membership in this association is not worth the amount of sovereignty Great Britain has to sacrifice. Because of this membership nine new governing bodies have been formed to represent regions of Great Britain in the EU and only one of these assemblies is popularly elected. These largely non-elected assemblies now play a major role in British politics and take a significant portion of power from the elected Parliament. Membership in the EU forces governments of all member states to accept the decisions made by the EU no matter how detrimental these policies could be to certain member states. Not all legislature in the EU has and will benefit Britain, who is sacrificing their sovereignty, which would prohibit legislature that negatively affected Britain wherever possible. Citizens of Great Britain are unnecessarily and in many cases unwillingly giving up their rights to a greater European power who is much less focused on their needs and wants. Britain is no longer only governed by British, but now by an association composed of members from across the European continent. Membership in the EU is causing Great Britain to drift further and further from democracy and closer and closer to republicanism.
I thought the second article did a much better job of making a supportive argument than the first. The fist article brought up what i thought was a minnor reason on why the UK should not join the EU and then did a poor job of backing the reason up. The whole fist article seemed exagerated and blown out of proportion, especial with the line "It is silent, bloodless ethnic cleansing. It's no exaggeration to say that it's genocide without the blood." The article brought up some points about how england is loosing its identity but the EU was not to blame and the article didn't convince me that joining the EU would erase the English culture any more or any faster than the way things are getting along now. The author takes about how the EU has broken England up into 9 regions/assemblies and because of this they will not be able to be one England. I feel the way England is regionally represented in England does not make any person less english, that would be like saying because there are 50 states in the united states it makes people less American. The only part of this first article that i agreed with was the section about people being given a chance to vote on if they wanted to be sectioned off into assemblies and then the government making a decision regardless of the result of the vote. I think it would be less of an issue if the government had just made the decision right off the bat, but giving the people a choice and then taking that away doesn't seem very democratic. All in all this first article did not bring up main points to why England should not join the EU, or even good points.
the second article was much better at brining up relevant points and sucesfully supporting those points. He makes a point about how you can "wish away" globalization and that countries need to cooperate to interact with eachother in a better way. The author makes good points about trade and even enbiormental reasons, however, he does not try to make any counter arguments to reason people would bring up to why the UK shouldnt join. I think some counter arguments would make the article stronger but it is still a good article without them. However i am still skepticle to the EU, it's easy to look at what works with the EU and all the good things they do but it seems that there are some problems that people who are for the EU sweep under the rug. I do not think England should completely join the EU.
Before reading the articles, I had thought that the UK's current relationship with the EU, the “one foot in, one foot out” membership, would benefit the UK's citizens more than it would disadvantage them. But after discovering that, as it said in Coleman's article, the EU was accountable for 70% of British laws and that England was represented by Regional Assemblies that not only were not elected, but rejected by the people who they were representing in a clear vote, my opinion was swayed. The argument that the UK should stay in the EU, because European international cooperation is worth the price of a little sacrifice in national sovereignty would make sense, if 70% of British law were “a little” sacrifice, but they're not. Coleman said, speaking about the Regional Assemblies, “These utterly unelected and undemocratic bodies make very real decisions about how our lives are run.” which, to me, sounds ridiculous, that the United Kingdom should allow government appointed, not elected, officials to determine political decisions and to lobby for EU legislation in British parliament. Although Laming did have a few good points, as to why the UK should stay in the EU, I still disagreed with him. When Laming says in his article “The idea behind the single market is that there should be common rules for businesses in all countries so that they can trade with each other more easily.” he makes a good point, that the ideas of the EU are good. What he fails to realize is that when these ideas are put into action, the results are disastrous. Look at the EU today, Greece's economy has collapsed and because the EU has a “Eurozone” economy, the European economy has been dragged down with Greece's. The thought of a union between European countries is good, but the actual thing is not that great, actually it's terrible. Between a disastrous economy, unelected assemblies, and too much sacrifice of sovereignty I think that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.
The first article regarding why the UK should leave the EU was rather harsh and left the reader thinking that there isn't any hope whatsoever for the UK to thrive as a nation if it remains in the so-called tragic state it is currently in. Coleman seemed rather adament about his ideas and opinions towards the UK and their status in the EU. However, he did make several points that are relevant to the reality of the UK's situation, such as the downfall of the potential split for regionalism in England and the UK, which seemed like a rather poor idea and it was interesting how Coleman identified the regions as existing today despite the fact that the notion of creating them was rejected.
The second viewpoint was much more realistic, and brought up the important topic of globalization. It is imperative that countries cooperate and surrender some of their sovereignty for the sake of improving society and the relations between nations. Because countries are growing more and more interdependent, developing organizations such as the EU and the United Nations is key to maintaining a well-organized and properly functioning society and economy for all citizens in any nation. Laming brings up "the benefit of trade" in his article, and this focuses on the positive effects that the EU has created for the world. The "largest Single Market in the world" makes trade between countries smoother and easier, as well as creating thousands of jobs. Whereas Coleman is extremely opinionated in his piece and tries to persuade the public that remaining in the EU is a terrible mistake for England, Laming takes a more educational approach, and brings up more relative points for consideration.
This said, I believe that Great Britain should remain with one foot in and one foot out of the European Union for the time being. Things will change, and it may become clear which path the UK should take for the future of their status in the EU. Britain is a strong cultural society, as mentioned in Coleman's article, and their unity allows them to be able to function well on their own. Although, it is a good idea for Great Britain to keep a position in the EU because it is an organization that will provide a way for the country to have a say in policies that the EU might discuss, but at the same time Great Britain needs to be cautious with a complete position in the EU, for it may bring more damage than prosperity.
After reading the articles discussing the issue on whether Great Britian should either leave the European Union or join, my opinion became swayed by the first article. The first article's argument that Great Britain should ultimately leave the European seemed to make more sense to me for a few reasons.
The most important argument made by Coleman was most certainly his "Voters Ignored" statement. I believe that this altercation clearly showed that Great Britain should not remain in the European Union. The most important thing to do is to listen to what the people in your country want. Coleman explains in his article that the people of Great Britain living in the North East rejected working for the North East Assembly. If the European Union is ignoring those living in its countries, then I see no point in why one would join.
Additionally to this I do not believe that Laming provided sufficient information regarding the benefits of Great Britain joining the EU. I do not believe that Laming's main point of globilizatin and trading with the rest of Europe is good enough because Great Britain does not have to be isolated just because it is not part of the EU. Laming's points seem to lack legitimacy as they are not adequatley backed up.
The United Kingdom does not need the European Union and therefore i believe that they should not remain in it. I think the most important thing to look at is what the people of Great Britain want. As it was clearly stated in the first article that Great Britain should leave the European Union, it seems that the EU doesn't actually care what the people want hence there no question that Great Britain should in fact leave the EU.
After reading both of the articles, it is my opinion, as it was before I read the articles, that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. As stated in the first article, and as mentioned by Wesley, 70% of the United Kingdom's laws are due to the Eurpoean Union, which signifies a huge loss of sovereignty on the United Kingdom's part. Frankly speaking, there are not really any economic benefits that would justify their further participation in the EU. Sure, the Eurpoean Union has and continues to do great things in humanitarian terms, but they aren't sufficient to redeem the losses of Sovereignty.
The United Kingdom is delaying their vote partly because they are hesitant in their actions, and also because they're enjoying the place that they're in right now. There are slight perks to being a member of the European Union that they're taking advantage of, but they're "half in, half out" and they're going to have to make a decision soon.
In my mind, the European Union is much more benifcial for small countries that want to raise their stance and influence in Europe and the world. However, Great Britain is, economically speaking, not a small country at all. In fact, their prosperity is unmatchable by any other country in Europe. Ergo, it's not truly benifcial for them to stay in the European Union, which is more likely to look out for itself as a whole, than to make concessions for Great Britain of give them special privileges on account of their economic dominance.
One of the other main functions of the European Union are humanitarian efforts. In conjunction with the United Nationa and NATO, the European Union is dedicated to spreading peace and human equality throughout the world. However, before their involvement with the European Union, Great Britain was doing commendably in its humanitarian endeavors, for example when Tony Blair made efforts to stop the genocide in Kosovo. The United Kingdom clearly does not need to be Involved with the European Union to prosper or do good things throughout the world, therefore I believe the they should decline any involvement with them.
I believe Great Britain should join the EU. Yes, right now it does not look that good the future of the EU, but that is only the lack of support from the countries in Europe.If the EU is going to work its needs the support of all the countries in Europe, especially Great Britain. Great Britain is one of the most powerful and influential countries in Europe and without it's support the EU will never survive. Plus with Great Britain's support the EU will gain a lot more support. Joining will force Great Britain to give up some of it's sovereignty but looking back at our own history if each state didn't give up some it's power then we would never have had a United States of America today. The fact is that joining the EU would in fact be a great risk for Great Britain but with the greatest risk's come the greatest rewards.
Both of these articles seem to come from an impassioned author. Honestly,though, neither one of them really affected how I feel about the EU. From the beginning of our discussion about it, I did not think that Britain should stay in the EU. To me, the European Union is taking a lot of collective power, and these countries are becoming much more like one massive country being controlled by a general mass government. Truthfully, I think the pressure that Britain is feeling from the EU to join is due to the fact that their membership will help them acquire legitimacy; and consequently, more countries into the union.
The second article states that "These permanent institutions work together to ensure that all the different interests are considered and taken into account in making decisions," is a general and overstated remark. I think that in the end the EU is going to do what is best for them as a union, and (especially the smaller countries) are going to be taken advantage of because they are interdependent on one another as well as the EU. While Britain is a bigger country, and would have more influence, the EU doesn't really, in my opinion, have a lot to offer Britain that they don't already have. I agree with Blake that there is truly nothing beneficial for Britain in the EU.
I agree with Mickey, that the first author was extreme. While I do concur that Britain should leave, I do not think it is because Britain is loosing their identity. It is simply because the EU isn't really much of anything without a country to give them legitimacy and that is all that would come about with Britain becoming a member. The statement that "England is about to disappear. It already no longer exists expect as a memory" isn't true and probably couldn't be because culture and tradition is so deeply ingrained in the people and the nation that they could never truly loose their identity.
While I do believe that Britain should leave. I also think that the EU is commendable in their humanitarian efforts and as well as their environmental efforts. "It is obvious that pollution does not stop at national borders and that shared efforts are therefore required if there is to be an effective effort to protect the environment". However, I think these things are what we owe each other as being part of humanity, not a reason to join the EU.
Neither article persuaded me from my already set views on Great Britain's relationship with the European Union. Although both presented themselves in an understandable and rational manner, the combination of the two, along with our class discussions lead me to believe the United Kingdom should remain in its current position. At this point, it appears that fully joining, or fulling leaving the EU would have negative consequences for Britain.
If the country completely joined the European Union, which some say is the morally correct thing to do, Britain would be giving up more of its sovereignty, as well as changing its economic system. No longer would the country be able to make all of its own decisions, without first consulting the union. Also, the adaptation of the Euro could cause issues in the already struggling British economy. The benefits the European Union could provide for Britain do not out way the benefits provided if Britain remains were it is.
Likewise, the benefits leaving the European Union would have for Britain do not out way the benefits of remaining were they are now. Leaving the EU would be a mistake because it would upset some of the other European countries, and also because it would exclude Great Britain from easy trade with other EU nations. Neither the loss of this easy trade, nor the loss of support from some of the smaller nations in Europe would have a great economic effect on Great Britain currently, but it is hard to tell if either will be beneficial in the future. Also, neither is hurting GB, so there is no real reason to completely leave the EU at the moment.
All in all, Great Britain's relationship with the European Union stands in the best possible position it could, and therefore should not change until forced to do so. Right now, Britain gets the best of both worlds-it is able to participate in easy trade with other countries of the EU, and maintains the support of smaller European nations, while also keeping some of its sovereignty and not having to adapt the Euro. This position could cause issues in Europe, in the future, but for the time being, its the optimum solution for Britain.
Although both authors make fairly good points in regards to Great Britain's status in the European Union, I believe Great Britain should remain on the edge of the EU.
Coleman wrote well, but was much too dramatic. While catching my attention, he also practically insulted me, a lowly American, by focusing solely on the cons for England. Great Britain is NOT just made up of England, but Scotland and Wales as well. I applaud him for making a good case against the EU, but I do not think we can accept him as a completely reliable source of information. In "Voters Ignored", I was shocked by his voter statistics, but am suspicious of the supposed involvement of the EU in secretive police matters. In class we've discussed the effects of the formation of the UK and membership in the EU on the nations of the UK, and I was under the impression that nationality was retained - even if old traditions were replaced by new, more effective/efficient traditions. Coleman does make a good point when he says that 9 regional assemblies sounds absurd when considering replacing England as a whole nation, but it seems that the English are so secure in their heritage that they couldn't possibly lose their defining characteristic that separates them from Scottish, Welsh, and Irish.
Laming, writing of why GB should remain in the European Union, argues that the EU is already successful in creating a cohesive whole and to leave would cause damage to a tender balance. BUT Laming writes that GB should "remain" in the EU, practically ignoring GB's indecisiveness over the subject. While yes, other organizations have been successful in their attempts to unite countries, these associations have been largely based on economic and social policies rather than political influence. To give up sovereignty in economic and social matters is entirely different from relinquishing power from the central governments, and, if what Coleman says is valid, eliminating the central government of England altogether. While in "The Benefit of Trade" Laming underlines the great feat of the EU, the Single Market, and I agree that this economic change has made business and pleasure between countries a much easier venture. "...the EU is becoming increasingly democratic in the way that it works and makes decisions", but why didn't the EU begin as a highly democratic organization? To convince member countries to completely agree with the method of uniformity, the EU must provide reason for the countries to join. A loss of sovereignty and a false promise of democratic involvement does not seem like the proper way to welcome an influential country such as Great Britain into the folds.
I've come to the conclusion that if forced to choose between commitment and disassociation, Great Britain would do well to leave the EU. As the EU pushes to officialize GB's involvement, they seem to forget that GB is perfectly fine with those policies it may lose out on and those they may take advantage of. Teetering on the edge seems to be working well with GB as they can afford to be choosey with those policies they implement and those they forgo. It is the best of both worlds. Frankly, isn't that what we all wish for?
Based on the article, i believe Great Britain should remain in the position it is currently. By having 'one foot in and one foot out' it gains some of the benefits of the EU while still keeping most of its autonomy.
I agree that the first veiw point was overly dramatic, and though I dont think England is about to disapear, i understand how it may seem that globalization is causing the english 'identity' to fade. As much as it may seem to be fading however, I think it would be nearly impossible for the cultural and spiritual heritage of the english to completely disappear. I believe that, if the EU does seek to replace England with nine regional assemblies, it would not be wise for Great Britain to join the EU mainly because the split may cause new regional tensions, not to mention the fact that I dont think its necessary.
In regards to the article in favor of the EU, I think the idea of making trade easier is good, though the slight economic benefits do not out-wiegh the risks of being more interdependent on the 'single market' and its stability. In the section entitled "Whu the EU is a Sucess", it states " The prime ministers of the member states are not free to ignore the decisions thaty they do not like: the European Court of Justice has the role of holing politicians to keep their word" Though I understand the idea behind keeping politician to their word, i think there are some policies that may be in the best interest of say Hungary, but that wont be in the best interest for Great Britain. Because of this, it is understandable why Britain may not want to give up some of its autonomy and be subject to policies that may not be in its best interest.
After reading both the articles, my opinion didn't change from before I had read them. I, too, found the first article a little too biased and dramatic and disagreed with several statements of the author, such as that "...it is the EU's plan to get rid of England...". The second article did not provide enough emotion into proving a point.
Personally, I feel as though Great Britain should remain in the position that it holds now, one foot in, one foot out. Great Britain has been doing fine without full membership in the EU. Great Britain has realized that there are both advantages that accompany joining the EU as well as remaining separated from the EU. At the state it's in now, Great Britain reaps the benefits of the EU but loses nothing. Most importantly, it can still keep hold of its sovereignty. Also, Great Britain realizes that it has mantained , and can continue to maintain, this interdependence on its own instead of becoming part of the EU which promotes the process of globalozation. I also agree with the idea that joinging with smaller nations and less developed nations in the EU could hurt Britain, and I think that this is another reason why the one foot in, one foot out approach has been a good choice.
I think that the decision to stay where it's at is best for Great Britain. Not being officially a part of the EU but still playing a big role in the organization works as a great advantage in regards to Great Britain.
23 comments:
After reading the articles, I still feel as though Britain will not gain from entering the European Union. On that note though, I didn't agree with "Great Britain Should Leave the European Union," rather I disagreed with "Great Britain Should Remain in the European Union."
I feel as though the first viewpoint was far too extremist. The idea that -England is coming to an end and will vanish from existence- was a bit much.
One of my major supporting factors for why Britain shouldn't join the European Union was in "The Benefit of Trade" section in the second viewpoint. It mentioned that the EU, having created the largest Single Market in the world, makes it easier for the countries involved to trade as well as promote economic growth, cut costs of delivering goods, and creating jobs. This sounds great especially because Great Britain is know for struggling with unemployment and economic issues (as seen in the Prime Minister's Questions), but in reality, this would not help Britain.
If you look at the UK's exports (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/2/24/1267034168701/UK-exports-graphic-001.jpg), all of the members of the EU that are listed as the top trading partners have red circles, indicating that Britain has been less involved in trade there, while they've been increasing in places abroad such as China and Canada. This shows that Britain does not need help with their trades; they're better off as they are. They don't need a fake attempt at an outside federal government to assist them with something that their own Parliament can handle.
In addition to the trade issue I also disagreed with the paragraph stating that without the EU, devastating things would happen such as decision-making occurring without rule of law. However, all of the things listed that the EU countries would have to live without, should something happen to the EU, Britain already has.
With all this in mind I put my vote out that Great Britain does not join the European Union, rather stay where they are with one hand in and one hand out. This way they're capable of getting the best of both worlds; keeping their sovereignty, while also recognizing globalization.
~Mikayla
Truthfully I was not impressed by either of the two articles we had to read. Each for a different reason, but neither were able to sway my point of view that the United Kingdom should stay exactly where it is and perhaps take a small step out of the European Union. The first article written by Vernon Coleman was far too radical in what it wanted, and far too dramatic in its presentation. On the other hand, the second article by Richard Laming was not very convincing.
Coleman opened up his argument by saying the European Union is taking part in, “Silent, bloodless, ethnic cleansing…genocide without the blood.” At that point he lost most of his credibility for me and that was paragraph three. This being said, the author does have a valid point. The regional assemblies that were created are unelected members of government. They were voted down yet Great Britain still has them. While I don’t think the European Union is out to eliminate England from the map I do see that becoming more involved with the Union will force Britain to give up a good amount of their policies to conform to an organization that puts its own needs first. The article would have been more convincing if Coleman did not let his want to sell books and columns get in the way of facts.
Richard Laming is the Secretary of Federal Union and his article feels like just another piece of European Union propaganda. He brings up globalization as a valid point, but abandons it after three lines. He brings up the benefits of trade and then succeeds in only pointing out how the pound is worth so much more than the Euro. Yes the European Union has created a few hundred thousand jobs, but across 27 countries. Great Britain needs that many just for itself. He does not establish why environmental issues must be handled through the European Union when it would be just as easy to meet with the leaders of various countries involved and create legislation that way. I agree that Britain needs to cooperate with the European Union; just not that it has to join.
Overall I think the United Kingdom is making the strategic move of delaying its vote so that it can enjoy the benefits of the EU without having to give up its sovereignty. They should continue this as long as possible, but when it finally comes time to make a choice I think the smart one would be to say no and not become a part of the European Union.
After reading the two articles about the EU, I too agree that Britain should stay right where it is or back off if the need presents itself. Like Mickey and Josh said, the first article was a little on the dramatic side, as the English it seems, are a bit too loud to entirely disappear, and their culture has too many strong points to vanish.
That being said, he also does have a point when he brings up the fact that the Regional Assemblies that are "utterly unelected and undemocratic" make "very real decisions about how [their] lives are run". It's not fair for Parliament to impose something upon the people that they don't want. In that respect, a majority of the people don't want to be part of the European Union. However, if Britain were to ever back out of the EU, is it even possible? And what are the ramifications of leaving?
The second article talks a lot about globalization and how the solutions to a problem don't just effect one country anymore. That is true, and it's also the reason why the idea of the EU looks good on paper. The environmental outreach of the European Union seems like a good idea, seeing as how it connects Europe though not necessarily with ties that cannot be broken, but anything farther the EU may be planning is going to far in my opinion. The evidence provided too doesn't say what the European Union has done for Britain, but what it has done for everyone involved in the EU, so it makes you wonder just how much support is Britain actually getting from the EU? All those jobs the the EU has created, how many actually went to British people? How much money has Britain actually got back? There don't really seem to be clear numbers anywhere.
Personally, I don't think Britain can afford not to be part of the EU, not and look bad in the face of other countries, but the exact message of the EU still seems unclear. I think Britain should stay where they are with one foot in and one foot out.
I don’t think Britain should do anything to change its role in the European Union. As it is, it can vote, but it doesn’t have to do everything the EU says it should do. In regard to the economy, it doesn’t have to use the Euro and it doesn’t have to risk being dragged down by poorer countries belonging to the EU. The article in favor of Britain remaining in the EU claimed that it had led to an “increase in household income of about… £3,819 in the past ten years,” but I don’t see how they could tell that that was a direct result of the European Single Market; there were probably other factors involved.
There are also humanitarian efforts associated with the EU, but Britain already does pretty well with contributing aid to developing countries. If the EU did not exist, Britain would still help those in need.
Obviously Britain can’t afford to be isolationist, but there is really no danger of that anymore; it would be practically impossible for it to do so without serious repercussions in its economy and relationships with other nations. It doesn’t need the EU in order to be a world leader; it already is one.
Neither of the two articles we read really changed my point of view. I do not think that Great Britain should leave the European Union, I think that they should remain in EU but I do think that their current position will soon cause problems in the EU.
I agreed with Mickey, Josh, and Sara in the sense that the first article was too dramatic. I do not think that the relationship between the EU and the UK is "genocide without the blood." The goal of the EU is not to wipe England off the map, it is to promote the political and economic integration of Europe. I didn't like the fact that Vernon Coleman took the position of an Englishman rather than taking into consideration the involvement of the UK as a whole. I do not believe that the UK's current position is jeopardizing the English culture and I also do not think that an increased involvement in the EU by the UK would jeopardize the English culture.
Coleman did have a good point when he talked about the Regional Assemblies. If the EU has a democratic requirement for countries joining, it should not put undemocratic assemblies in power. Although it is clear that some points Coleman made were exaggerated, if a region votes down a Regional Assembly there shouldn't be one.
I do not think this is any reason for the UK to leave the EU. The only part of the article that I thought contributed to this argument was the excerpt from the UK Independence Party. It stated that The EU is bad for the economy, self-respect, and prosperity of the UK. These arguments aren't really backed, but if this were the case then it would be in the UK's best interest to leave.
The next article does not convince me either. Richard Laming mentions globalization as the main reason that the UK should remain in the EU. Laming then fails to elaborate on this point. Though we have already discovered how much globalization is affecting today's politics I don't really understand how it contributes to the UK's position in the EU.
I do agree with what Laming has to say about environmental benefits when he says, "It takes an organization as bit as the EU to make such a program possible."
This article seems to take the stance of Great Britain should stay where they are in respects to the EU. None of Laming's points contributed to increased involvement by the UK in the EU but I still think it is a good idea.
Maybe it is because I am not from Great Britain but I found myself looking at Great Britain's position in the European Union from the position of the EU's other members. I don't think its right that Great Britain is able to take advantage of the European Union, and basically do exactly what Laming says should not be done, "ignore the decisions that they do not like," such as adopting the Euro.
I understand that the position Great Britain holds in the EU is ideal for them. They get all of the benefits the EU has to offer and very few of the disadvantages. It is clear that the EU provides the largest benefits to smaller countries who are unable to change anything in a global environment with out the backing of the rest of Europe. I also understand that Great Britain doesn't need the EU. There are no clear advantages to becoming more involved, it would be an advantage to the EU's other members. The UK basically uses the EU when it is to their advantage, but will make no sacrifices for the sake of other members. I do not think this is right and even though the UK is not a full member, they have the second highest number of seats in the EU parliament. I don't understand why other full members are okay with this. I think that Great Britain's current position will start to cause problems; regardless of whether they become full members or leave the EU completely (if thats even possible) something needs to change before it becomes a problem.
Neither article succeeded in inspiring any insight in my mind. My thoughts remained in tact and nothing either article took note of swayed my opinion. I still believe that the United Kingdom should remain in the state that it is in, if not distance itself mildly from the European Union.
The first article was in the point of view of a seemingly proud Englishman who would prefer that the country refuse the help of the EU because of how superior they are and, possibly, how weak the EU makes them appear in the eyes of foreign nations. He was rather sarcastic in his remarks that the UK is "disappearing". Also, England is not "coming to an end". The United Kingdom is also better off than other nations at the moment, with a better unemployment rate and the like.
The first article lacked depth; the author threw points into the pile with little explanation and gave little in terms of relation to the topic.
The United Kingdom remains quite strong as they are currently standing and do not require the help of the EU. As Mickey said, they are much better off than the EU in terms of trading partners. However, I don't believe that the UK needs to separate themselves from the EU. The relationship, while it doesn't provide great benefits for the UK, it doesn't hurt the UK to remain in a cooperative relationship with the EU.
The second article was very cut and dry; it, too, lacked depth and at the same time, while the first author seemed very radical, the second author didn't seem intrigued enough in his own concept. He throws a few pro-EU concepts into the mix, including Globalization, trade benefits, and their successful employment rates; however, Laming discusses little in relation to Great Britain's current state and how the EU could help in these areas.
The European Union is a good idea, hypothetically, for weaker nations. The United Kingdom, however, is not weak; instead they are thriving.
The entire time I read both articles, the same phrase stuck out in my mind: "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." Honestly, it makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, they should not, in their current state, vote in favor of greater involvement in the European Union.
--Very sorry for the delay.
Based on the articles, I agree with the Coleman's Article, as opposed to Laming's article. Mainly because, though Laming made many points about why Great Britain should join the EU, none of those benefits seemed worth the loss of independence. Laming had many good points that were agreeable, it seemed more like propaganda than anything else. Lines in the article that made it come across that way were “It takes an organization as big as the EU to make such a programme possible” and “...and has achieved things that mere cooperation never could.”. It seems to be less of a substantial argument, and felt sugar-coated.
Coleman’s article came across as much more blunt. He gave proof and facts to back up his points about England disappearing. He seemed very focused on the EU splitting England into nine regions, “each already has a Regional Assembly... Eight of the Regional Assemblies are entirely unelected.” and later in the article Coleman states “These utterly unelected and undemocratic bodies make very real decisions about how our lives are run.” this is just one example about how giving up your independence for interdependence can allow for a country to crumble.
My viewpoint was not exactly changed, I still agree that the EU is only an idea that looks good on paper, but would not work in real life. Unlike my other classmates, I did not find the first one extreme, I found it informative and eyeopening, especially the part about the Regional Assemblies. The second article seemed a lot more like a cheerleader for the EU. I still believe that the EU is not worth giving up your sovereignty, and being connected is as, if not, more dangerous than beneficial. If one country goes down, they all go down with it.
So, Great Britain should not join the EU, because the independence they have is not worth giving up for the unclear purpose of the EU.
After reading both of the articles my views were not changed greatly. I don't think that Britain should leave nor join the EU. They wouldn't gain anything from joining and nothing would change if they don't. Staying as they are, one foot in one foot out, seems to me as the best decision.
The first article talks about how Great Britain is being destroyed, and how all is left is a memory of a great country, all this is because Great Britain is in the EU. I strongly disagree with this view, and I believe that the author seems to go an extreme with his ideas. I agree with that fact that Britain joining the EU is not a good idea because decisions made to help smaller and less powerful countries could ultimately hurt Britain. Joining the EU is not going to kill British pride and image. The EU does not have some master plan to destroy Britain, as the first article says. The EU wants to promote globalization and economic success, something that Great Britian does not need.
I believe that the European Union in thought is a very smart idea, especially to countries that are smaller and less powerful. However for a country like Britain to join the EU would not be a good idea because they EU would not help. While there are problems in Britain, as with any country, these problems cannot be solved by joining the EU. Britain giving up sovereignty is not going to solve job problems. Britain does not need help with trade, like smaller countries do. Joining the EU may look good on paper, but all in all it won't solve the problems in Great Britain. My thoughts are this; Great Britain should stay the same. They get the best of both, they don’t have to choose sides; they can be on both. They can keep their sovereignty, (so their country pride doesn't perish) and they can help with rising countries and the rise of globalization.
After reading the following articles I feel that Great Britain is in a good position economically to be one foot in and one foot out. But I also feel that they should join for moral reasons.
Coleman did kind of throw me for a loop like Josh had stated when he stated the the EU was enacting in bloodless genocide, he could of made his point without being so dramatic. I did agree with the fact that the EU does add some stability and foundations for European cooperation and that without it the economies in Europe would of been more devastated if they had not been apart of it. But I think also that the declining economies of Europe would hurt Great Britain.
So I still stand by the idea that on moral grounds Great Britain should join the EU but on Economic grounds being one foot in and one foot out is perfect for the UK.
Great Britain should terminate their membership in the EU. Membership in this association is not worth the amount of sovereignty Great Britain has to sacrifice. Because of this membership nine new governing bodies have been formed to represent regions of Great Britain in the EU and only one of these assemblies is popularly elected. These largely non-elected assemblies now play a major role in British politics and take a significant portion of power from the elected Parliament. Membership in the EU forces governments of all member states to accept the decisions made by the EU no matter how detrimental these policies could be to certain member states. Not all legislature in the EU has and will benefit Britain, who is sacrificing their sovereignty, which would prohibit legislature that negatively affected Britain wherever possible. Citizens of Great Britain are unnecessarily and in many cases unwillingly giving up their rights to a greater European power who is much less focused on their needs and wants. Britain is no longer only governed by British, but now by an association composed of members from across the European continent. Membership in the EU is causing Great Britain to drift further and further from democracy and closer and closer to republicanism.
I thought the second article did a much better job of making a supportive argument than the first. The fist article brought up what i thought was a minnor reason on why the UK should not join the EU and then did a poor job of backing the reason up. The whole fist article seemed exagerated and blown out of proportion, especial with the line "It is silent, bloodless ethnic cleansing. It's no exaggeration to say that it's genocide without the blood." The article brought up some points about how england is loosing its identity but the EU was not to blame and the article didn't convince me that joining the EU would erase the English culture any more or any faster than the way things are getting along now. The author takes about how the EU has broken England up into 9 regions/assemblies and because of this they will not be able to be one England. I feel the way England is regionally represented in England does not make any person less english, that would be like saying because there are 50 states in the united states it makes people less American. The only part of this first article that i agreed with was the section about people being given a chance to vote on if they wanted to be sectioned off into assemblies and then the government making a decision regardless of the result of the vote. I think it would be less of an issue if the government had just made the decision right off the bat, but giving the people a choice and then taking that away doesn't seem very democratic. All in all this first article did not bring up main points to why England should not join the EU, or even good points.
the second article was much better at brining up relevant points and sucesfully supporting those points. He makes a point about how you can "wish away" globalization and that countries need to cooperate to interact with eachother in a better way. The author makes good points about trade and even enbiormental reasons, however, he does not try to make any counter arguments to reason people would bring up to why the UK shouldnt join. I think some counter arguments would make the article stronger but it is still a good article without them. However i am still skepticle to the EU, it's easy to look at what works with the EU and all the good things they do but it seems that there are some problems that people who are for the EU sweep under the rug. I do not think England should completely join the EU.
Before reading the articles, I had thought that the UK's current relationship with the EU, the “one foot in, one foot out” membership, would benefit the UK's citizens more than it would disadvantage them. But after discovering that, as it said in Coleman's article, the EU was accountable for 70% of British laws and that England was represented by Regional Assemblies that not only were not elected, but rejected by the people who they were representing in a clear vote, my opinion was swayed.
The argument that the UK should stay in the EU, because European international cooperation is worth the price of a little sacrifice in national sovereignty would make sense, if 70% of British law were “a little” sacrifice, but they're not. Coleman said, speaking about the Regional Assemblies, “These utterly unelected and undemocratic bodies make very real decisions about how our lives are run.” which, to me, sounds ridiculous, that the United Kingdom should allow government appointed, not elected, officials to determine political decisions and to lobby for EU legislation in British parliament.
Although Laming did have a few good points, as to why the UK should stay in the EU, I still disagreed with him. When Laming says in his article “The idea behind the single market is that there should be common rules for businesses in all countries so that they can trade with each other more easily.” he makes a good point, that the ideas of the EU are good. What he fails to realize is that when these ideas are put into action, the results are disastrous. Look at the EU today, Greece's economy has collapsed and because the EU has a “Eurozone” economy, the European economy has been dragged down with Greece's.
The thought of a union between European countries is good, but the actual thing is not that great, actually it's terrible. Between a disastrous economy, unelected assemblies, and too much sacrifice of sovereignty I think that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.
- Wesley
The first article regarding why the UK should leave the EU was rather harsh and left the reader thinking that there isn't any hope whatsoever for the UK to thrive as a nation if it remains in the so-called tragic state it is currently in. Coleman seemed rather adament about his ideas and opinions towards the UK and their status in the EU. However, he did make several points that are relevant to the reality of the UK's situation, such as the downfall of the potential split for regionalism in England and the UK, which seemed like a rather poor idea and it was interesting how Coleman identified the regions as existing today despite the fact that the notion of creating them was rejected.
The second viewpoint was much more realistic, and brought up the important topic of globalization. It is imperative that countries cooperate and surrender some of their sovereignty for the sake of improving society and the relations between nations. Because countries are growing more and more interdependent, developing organizations such as the EU and the United Nations is key to maintaining a well-organized and properly functioning society and economy for all citizens in any nation. Laming brings up "the benefit of trade" in his article, and this focuses on the positive effects that the EU has created for the world. The "largest Single Market in the world" makes trade between countries smoother and easier, as well as creating thousands of jobs. Whereas Coleman is extremely opinionated in his piece and tries to persuade the public that remaining in the EU is a terrible mistake for England, Laming takes a more educational approach, and brings up more relative points for consideration.
This said, I believe that Great Britain should remain with one foot in and one foot out of the European Union for the time being. Things will change, and it may become clear which path the UK should take for the future of their status in the EU. Britain is a strong cultural society, as mentioned in Coleman's article, and their unity allows them to be able to function well on their own. Although, it is a good idea for Great Britain to keep a position in the EU because it is an organization that will provide a way for the country to have a say in policies that the EU might discuss, but at the same time Great Britain needs to be cautious with a complete position in the EU, for it may bring more damage than prosperity.
After reading the articles discussing the issue on whether Great Britian should either leave the European Union or join, my opinion became swayed by the first article. The first article's argument that Great Britain should ultimately leave the European seemed to make more sense to me for a few reasons.
The most important argument made by Coleman was most certainly his "Voters Ignored" statement. I believe that this altercation clearly showed that Great Britain should not remain in the European Union. The most important thing to do is to listen to what the people in your country want. Coleman explains in his article that the people of Great Britain living in the North East rejected working for the North East Assembly. If the European Union is ignoring those living in its countries, then I see no point in why one would join.
Additionally to this I do not believe that Laming provided sufficient information regarding the benefits of Great Britain joining the EU. I do not believe that Laming's main point of globilizatin and trading with the rest of Europe is good enough because Great Britain does not have to be isolated just because it is not part of the EU. Laming's points seem to lack legitimacy as they are not adequatley backed up.
The United Kingdom does not need the European Union and therefore i believe that they should not remain in it. I think the most important thing to look at is what the people of Great Britain want. As it was clearly stated in the first article that Great Britain should leave the European Union, it seems that the EU doesn't actually care what the people want hence there no question that Great Britain should in fact leave the EU.
After reading both of the articles, it is my opinion, as it was before I read the articles, that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. As stated in the first article, and as mentioned by Wesley, 70% of the United Kingdom's laws are due to the Eurpoean Union, which signifies a huge loss of sovereignty on the United Kingdom's part. Frankly speaking, there are not really any economic benefits that would justify their further participation in the EU. Sure, the Eurpoean Union has and continues to do great things in humanitarian terms, but they aren't sufficient to redeem the losses of Sovereignty.
The United Kingdom is delaying their vote partly because they are hesitant in their actions, and also because they're enjoying the place that they're in right now. There are slight perks to being a member of the European Union that they're taking advantage of, but they're "half in, half out" and they're going to have to make a decision soon.
In my mind, the European Union is much more benifcial for small countries that want to raise their stance and influence in Europe and the world. However, Great Britain is, economically speaking, not a small country at all. In fact, their prosperity is unmatchable by any other country in Europe. Ergo, it's not truly benifcial for them to stay in the European Union, which is more likely to look out for itself as a whole, than to make concessions for Great Britain of give them special privileges on account of their economic dominance.
One of the other main functions of the European Union are humanitarian efforts. In conjunction with the United Nationa and NATO, the European Union is dedicated to spreading peace and human equality throughout the world. However, before their involvement with the European Union, Great Britain was doing commendably in its humanitarian endeavors, for example when Tony Blair made efforts to stop the genocide in Kosovo. The United Kingdom clearly does not need to be Involved with the European Union to prosper or do good things throughout the world, therefore I believe the they should decline any involvement with them.
I believe Great Britain should join the EU. Yes, right now it does not look that good the future of the EU, but that is only the lack of support from the countries in Europe.If the EU is going to work its needs the support of all the countries in Europe, especially Great Britain. Great Britain is one of the most powerful and influential countries in Europe and without it's support the EU will never survive. Plus with Great Britain's support the EU will gain a lot more support. Joining will force Great Britain to give up some of it's sovereignty but looking back at our own history if each state didn't give up some it's power then we would never have had a United States of America today. The fact is that joining the EU would in fact be a great risk for Great Britain but with the greatest risk's come the greatest rewards.
Both of these articles seem to come from an impassioned author. Honestly,though, neither one of them really affected how I feel about the EU. From the beginning of our discussion about it, I did not think that Britain should stay in the EU. To me, the European Union is taking a lot of collective power, and these countries are becoming much more like one massive country being controlled by a general mass government. Truthfully, I think the pressure that Britain is feeling from the EU to join is due to the fact that their membership will help them acquire legitimacy; and consequently, more countries into the union.
The second article states that "These permanent institutions work together to ensure that all the different interests are considered and taken into account in making decisions," is a general and overstated remark. I think that in the end the EU is going to do what is best for them as a union, and (especially the smaller countries) are going to be taken advantage of because they are interdependent on one another as well as the EU. While Britain is a bigger country, and would have more influence, the EU doesn't really, in my opinion, have a lot to offer Britain that they don't already have. I agree with Blake that there is truly nothing beneficial for Britain in the EU.
I agree with Mickey, that the first author was extreme. While I do concur that Britain should leave, I do not think it is because Britain is loosing their identity. It is simply because the EU isn't really much of anything without a country to give them legitimacy and that is all that would come about with Britain becoming a member. The statement that "England is about to disappear. It already no longer exists expect as a memory" isn't true and probably couldn't be because culture and tradition is so deeply ingrained in the people and the nation that they could never truly loose their identity.
While I do believe that Britain should leave. I also think that the EU is commendable in their humanitarian efforts and as well as their environmental efforts. "It is obvious that pollution does not stop at national borders and that shared efforts are therefore required if there is to be an effective effort to protect the environment". However, I think these things are what we owe each other as being part of humanity, not a reason to join the EU.
Neither article persuaded me from my already set views on Great Britain's relationship with the European Union. Although both presented themselves in an understandable and rational manner, the combination of the two, along with our class discussions lead me to believe the United Kingdom should remain in its current position. At this point, it appears that fully joining, or fulling leaving the EU would have negative consequences for Britain.
If the country completely joined the European Union, which some say is the morally correct thing to do, Britain would be giving up more of its sovereignty, as well as changing its economic system. No longer would the country be able to make all of its own decisions, without first consulting the union. Also, the adaptation of the Euro could cause issues in the already struggling British economy. The benefits the European Union could provide for Britain do not out way the benefits provided if Britain remains were it is.
Likewise, the benefits leaving the European Union would have for Britain do not out way the benefits of remaining were they are now. Leaving the EU would be a mistake because it would upset some of the other European countries, and also because it would exclude Great Britain from easy trade with other EU nations. Neither the loss of this easy trade, nor the loss of support from some of the smaller nations in Europe would have a great economic effect on Great Britain currently, but it is hard to tell if either will be beneficial in the future. Also, neither is hurting GB, so there is no real reason to completely leave the EU at the moment.
All in all, Great Britain's relationship with the European Union stands in the best possible position it could, and therefore should not change until forced to do so. Right now, Britain gets the best of both worlds-it is able to participate in easy trade with other countries of the EU, and maintains the support of smaller European nations, while also keeping some of its sovereignty and not having to adapt the Euro. This position could cause issues in Europe, in the future, but for the time being, its the optimum solution for Britain.
Although both authors make fairly good points in regards to Great Britain's status in the European Union, I believe Great Britain should remain on the edge of the EU.
Coleman wrote well, but was much too dramatic. While catching my attention, he also practically insulted me, a lowly American, by focusing solely on the cons for England. Great Britain is NOT just made up of England, but Scotland and Wales as well. I applaud him for making a good case against the EU, but I do not think we can accept him as a completely reliable source of information. In "Voters Ignored", I was shocked by his voter statistics, but am suspicious of the supposed involvement of the EU in secretive police matters. In class we've discussed the effects of the formation of the UK and membership in the EU on the nations of the UK, and I was under the impression that nationality was retained - even if old traditions were replaced by new, more effective/efficient traditions. Coleman does make a good point when he says that 9 regional assemblies sounds absurd when considering replacing England as a whole nation, but it seems that the English are so secure in their heritage that they couldn't possibly lose their defining characteristic that separates them from Scottish, Welsh, and Irish.
Laming, writing of why GB should remain in the European Union, argues that the EU is already successful in creating a cohesive whole and to leave would cause damage to a tender balance. BUT Laming writes that GB should "remain" in the EU, practically ignoring GB's indecisiveness over the subject. While yes, other organizations have been successful in their attempts to unite countries, these associations have been largely based on economic and social policies rather than political influence. To give up sovereignty in economic and social matters is entirely different from relinquishing power from the central governments, and, if what Coleman says is valid, eliminating the central government of England altogether. While in "The Benefit of Trade" Laming underlines the great feat of the EU, the Single Market, and I agree that this economic change has made business and pleasure between countries a much easier venture. "...the EU is becoming increasingly democratic in the way that it works and makes decisions", but why didn't the EU begin as a highly democratic organization? To convince member countries to completely agree with the method of uniformity, the EU must provide reason for the countries to join. A loss of sovereignty and a false promise of democratic involvement does not seem like the proper way to welcome an influential country such as Great Britain into the folds.
I've come to the conclusion that if forced to choose between commitment and disassociation, Great Britain would do well to leave the EU. As the EU pushes to officialize GB's involvement, they seem to forget that GB is perfectly fine with those policies it may lose out on and those they may take advantage of. Teetering on the edge seems to be working well with GB as they can afford to be choosey with those policies they implement and those they forgo. It is the best of both worlds. Frankly, isn't that what we all wish for?
Based on the article, i believe Great Britain should remain in the position it is currently. By having 'one foot in and one foot out' it gains some of the benefits of the EU while still keeping most of its autonomy.
I agree that the first veiw point was overly dramatic, and though I dont think England is about to disapear, i understand how it may seem that globalization is causing the english 'identity' to fade. As much as it may seem to be fading however, I think it would be nearly impossible for the cultural and spiritual heritage of the english to completely disappear. I believe that, if the EU does seek to replace England with nine regional assemblies, it would not be wise for Great Britain to join the EU mainly because the split may cause new regional tensions, not to mention the fact that I dont think its necessary.
In regards to the article in favor of the EU, I think the idea of making trade easier is good, though the slight economic benefits do not out-wiegh the risks of being more interdependent on the 'single market' and its stability. In the section entitled "Whu the EU is a Sucess", it states " The prime ministers of the member states are not free to ignore the decisions thaty they do not like: the European Court of Justice has the role of holing politicians to keep their word" Though I understand the idea behind keeping politician to their word, i think there are some policies that may be in the best interest of say Hungary, but that wont be in the best interest for Great Britain. Because of this, it is understandable why Britain may not want to give up some of its autonomy and be subject to policies that may not be in its best interest.
After reading both the articles, my opinion didn't change from before I had read them. I, too, found the first article a little too biased and dramatic and disagreed with several statements of the author, such as that "...it is the EU's plan to get rid of England...". The second article did not provide enough emotion into proving a point.
Personally, I feel as though Great Britain should remain in the position that it holds now, one foot in, one foot out. Great Britain has been doing fine without full membership in the EU. Great Britain has realized that there are both advantages that accompany joining the EU as well as remaining separated from the EU. At the state it's in now, Great Britain reaps the benefits of the EU but loses nothing. Most importantly, it can still keep hold of its sovereignty. Also, Great Britain realizes that it has mantained , and can continue to maintain, this interdependence on its own instead of becoming part of the EU which promotes the process of globalozation. I also agree with the idea that joinging with smaller nations and less developed nations in the EU could hurt Britain, and I think that this is another reason why the one foot in, one foot out approach has been a good choice.
I think that the decision to stay where it's at is best for Great Britain. Not being officially a part of the EU but still playing a big role in the organization works as a great advantage in regards to Great Britain.
Post a Comment